Saleh Ahmed Barbhuiya vs State Of Assam

Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A. H. Laskar, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and Mr. D. Das,

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

The case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.

The matter is taken up for disposal.

This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner, namely Saleh Ahmed Barbhuiya, seeking bail. The accused-petitioner was arrested on

11.04.2021 in connection with Crime Branch Police Station Case No.03/2021 under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 66D of IT

Act.

The learned Senior counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that an FIR dated 29.01.2021 was lodged by the informant, Sri Rinkumani Sarania. In

the said FIR, the informant alleged that he had applied for regular Government post of Lab Technician under the Directorate of Health Services,

Assam, Hengrabari, Guwahati-36, for which the written examination was conducted on 10.01.2021. On 22.01.2021, he received a phone call from a

person who identified himself as Kamesh Pal and who claimed to be an employee of the Directorate of Health Services Office. The said person

informed the informant that he can get a Government job from the Directorate of Health Services against payment of money to the tune of

Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand) only and initially he is required to deposit a security money of Rs. 35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand)

only. Accordingly, the said Kamesh Pal gave the details of his bank account etc.

On the basis of the said FIR, the aforesaid Crime Branch Police Station Case No.03/2021 under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code read with Section

66D of IT Act was registered. In connection with the investigation in the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 11.04.2021 and was produced

before the learned CJM, Kamrup (Metro) on 12.04.2021 and thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody.

The learned Senior counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner is an HSLC passed person and is a petty businessman

carrying on Real Estate business in Guwahati. He submits that the accused-petitioner is no way connected with the aforesaid case and has been

falsely implicated in the case by the rivals in his Real Estate business by persons who are rivals in his Real Estate business. The learned Senior

counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that he and another co-accused namely, Imtiaz Barbhuiya hailed from the same area and both had been

friends since their childhood and are therefore, staying together in a rented house at Sixmile in Guwahati. While the petitioner is engaged in Real

Estate business in Guwahati, his friend, the co-accused, Imtiaz Barbhuyan was imparting coaching for ACS Examinations. The learned Senior counsel

for the petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner is not at all computer proficient and therefore, the allegation that he was involved in hacking of

the Government website is totally incorrect.

The learned Senior counsel further submits that the main accused in the case is a person named Kamesh Pal against whom there is a specific

allegation of demand of money by the complainant. The present petitioner was arrested merely on suspicion. There is no allegation that he had made

any phone calls or demanded money nor has any money been recovered from him. As such the ingredients necessary for attracting the provisions of

Section 420 and Section 66 D of the IT Act are not at all there. The learned Senior counsel further submits that Section 66 D of the IT Act is also

bailable offence. The learned Senior counsel also submits that the main accused namely, Kamesh Pal has since been released on bail by the Court of

learned CJM, Kamrup (M), the other co-accused namely, Imtiaz Barbhuyan has also been allowed to go on bail by an order passed by Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court.

The learned APP has produced the case diary in the connected case and has submitted that certain amount has been seen to have been deposited in

his account and therefore, there is a strong suspicion that he is connected in the present case.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and I have also perused the contents of the case diary presented today.

Upon due perusal of the case diary, it is seen that there is no material that the amount sought for by the person named in the FIR namely, Kamesh Pal

from the informant has been received by the petitioner. The amount of Rs.35,000/- has also not been parted with by the informant. There are no

allegations in the FIR against the accused-petitioner nor any material to that effect in the case diary in respect of the accused-petitioner. The accused-

petitioner has presently undergone 50 days in custody. The statutory period for detention is 60 days as provided in law. The case diary does not reveal

that further custodial detention of the petitioner has been sought for. Considering the period of detention undergone as well as there being no

incriminating materials seen from the case diary against the accused-petitioner, the accused-petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond

of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Kamrup (M) in Guwahati.

The bail granted shall is subject to the following conditions:-

(1) That the accused-petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other investigating agency or Court in the present case as and when

required;

(2) That the accused-petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person/witness acquainted with the facts

of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer in connection to this Police Station Case;

(3) That the accused-petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the trial;

(4) That the accused-petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.

If any of the conditions are found to be violated then the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the accused-

petitioner.

With the above direction, the bail petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

Return the case diary.